The case study of Miller v Alabama

On the cases, a fourteen year old child is convicted of murder (Lerner, Craig S, 28). The main issue is, should the child be sentenced without parole? In this case the guy by name Evan Miller killed a person who was named Cannon. It is stated that the named Miller killed cannon with a basket ball bat after which he started fire on his trailer home with Cannon inside. Miller was taken to the US Supreme court. On the court proceedings he was found guilty of robbery with violence and murder (Kirklin et al, 1498). Constitutionally, the case is based on the argument that children should not be evaluated in adult courts but rather should be taken to the children’s courts. The applicability of the case to be on for the minor court rather than on the one which he was taken.

The fact that the father and mother of Miller had objected him forms the base argument why he was attempting robbery as the only way to earn a living (Scott 535). On critical evaluation it was relatively not the intension of the boy Miller to involve himself on these acts but maybe due to influence by peers and highly propelled by the objection caused by his parents. It’s the power of the constitution that every parent must ensure grate care and provide his or her child with all the basics of living. Miller states in court that this lack of development starts up from both social and psychological factors. The young’s or adolescent are affected by high rate of hormonal imbalances which may impact their decision.

These issues emerged on the court after the case and something had to be done to reverse the case. The Alabama responds by differentiating the facts in the Roper v Graham. It’s clear that the case for Roper is more serious and a crime and should be dealt with more seriously. In this case it was stated that a child lacks maturity which in some times may lead to bad decisions affecting the law applications (Berkheiser et al, 37). When imposing a life imprisonment without parole they should have followed Miller’s background such as the family issues and any other matters which could have lead him to engage himself to criminal activities. The constitution also states that sentence of life without parole cannot be described as unusual but rather unless majority of the state support such sentencing scheme.

This opinion of the court also adds that not even the constitution or the precedents estoppels life without parole sentence for minors when they are accused of an offence. On conclusion majority relied on the principles of the case of Grahams and Roper to reach a conclusion of Miller. The second descent was the opinion raise by Thomas; his opinion is that many people may rely on. The Roper and Graham laws and precedents must be considered. Highly rated judgment must include all the principles on the precedents in position. That is the Alabama law should only be applicable in addition to these other precedents to form the exceptions where necessary. If the case is taken to the constitution a null support is likely to be achieved.

The diversity in another way is a bad issue since misuse of the minors by the majority for personal gains may be attempted (Stevenson et al, 538). The social work environment is affected and relatively loosed since many criminals will turn and use children for improper actions. The children may also take the advantage that they will not be charged with long period of imprisonment but will be released under some grounds other than the Alabama law. In the future the practice may become intense and affect the country adversely in the way cases will be argued. Justice will then be heard to be achieved if such issues will be applied. " The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation 34. Lerner, Craig S. "Sentenced to Confusion: Miller v.